Drug testing bill for welfare recipients advances in House

[redrumloa]

The House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would deny benefits to recipients of temporary financial assistance for at least one year if they fail a drug test.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/01/2 ... lfare.html

TALLAHASSEE -- Welfare recipients would need to pass drug tests – and pay for them -- before receiving financial assistance under bills traveling in both chambers that backers say will send a tough but needed message to substance abusers who use taxpayer money to feed their addiction instead of their families.

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee on a 13-5 vote approved a measure (HB 353) that would deny benefits to recipients of temporary financial assistance for at least one year if they fail a drug test. A second failed test would kick them off the assistance rolls for three years. Food stamp eligibility would not be affected.

A Senate bill (SB 556) is awaiting action in that chamber’s budget committee.

“Until we bring accountability into the process, there is no way we will ever get a handle on the huge impact substance abuse has on our communities,” said Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala. “We are becoming enablers in this sick relationship.”

 

[faethor]

Between the 80s and 90s there were 750 failed financial instituations costing US Taxpayers over $85Billion. Recently we too spent Billions on the banks.

My next door neighbor smokes pot and stays at home. If I have a choice of who to give my money to the neighbor is far less damaging and far less expensive.

The Republicans would do well to get rid of public vices - failed banks -and worry less about private vices - smoking a bit of weed.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

TALLAHASSEE -- Welfare recipients would need to pass drug tests – and pay for them --

This will save the government quite a bit of money in the welfare budget since not only will users be kicked off the rolls but also anybody who doesn't take the test on principle and all the people who can't afford the test. All those that CAN afford the test, a chunk of their welfare will be going to (private) drug-testing companies who, I bet, will be immune from any consequences of false positives (perhaps legislatively, but mostly because the guy who could barely afford the test certainly can't afford to sue and wouldn't be believed anyway because he's just a "welfare bum and junky".

It might help the payday loans places to gouge the poor some more for quick 2000% annualized rate loans so you can get your test. Always nice to see lenders make a quick buck off of the poor.

It might cost a lot more for the police department because people will have to do a lot more stealing than they did before. Once you get down to stealing for food and shelter jail is no longer a deterrent - because they actually provide food and shelter - and I know that when it gets cold the prison population increases as street people get themselves caught just to go somewhere warm and dry.

Now, how far are they willing to take this? Are they also willing to test for cigarettes and booze? Those things are a waste of money too. Are they willing to test for pop consumption (or bottled water consumption) or other wasteful spending?

These "morality laws" are much more about putting down a minority portion of the population so that everyone else can feel smug and self righteous. Spics, blacks, junkies, single mothers... all people it's popular to hate and punish. It isn't different in principle from a law that demands that you can't receive assistance if you are not attending church regularly - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't try something like that soon - because "atheists" are also on the list of "OK to hate".

 

[Glaucus]

Not sure why you'd be happy about this Red. Expect to see crime rates go up.

 

[redrumloa]

Not sure why you'd be happy about this Red. Expect to see crime rates go up.

I guess we will find out. I'm not sure why anyone would condone the state subsidizing drug habits and subsidizing broken homes. Crackheads don't make particularly good parents.

 

[faethor]

I guess we will find out. I'm not sure why anyone would condone the state subsidizing drug habits and subsidizing broken homes. Crackheads don't make particularly good parents.

Let's say the person is going to do Crack no matter what. Is it more cost effective to toss them a few bucks to stay at home? Or do we make them be poor and they then go out and rob and beat people. In the later case we pay cops, judges, and a penal system for them to spend time in prision. Either way it's money out of your pocket. Which is less money out of your pocket.

'Kill 'em All' -- Fade mentality is probably cheapest. Cops could just shoot them on the spot.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I guess we will find out. I'm not sure why anyone would condone the state subsidizing drug habits and subsidizing broken homes. Crackheads don't make particularly good parents.

And drug users don't respond well to punishment for being drug users. It tends to just make them hate the system more.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Drug war continues to be a failure.

[youtube:15n3z49x]OY70pHq93Ug[/youtube:15n3z49x]

 

[Glaucus]

The problem is complex. If you want to stop drug use you'll need to take different steps, and yes, it'll probably cost you money. If you think you can solve the drug abuse problem AND save money, you're dreaming. It's expensive, but worth every penny.

 

[faethor]

Crackheads don't make particularly good parents.

Need I say it?! You a right.

So how about we make laws that criminals and drug addicts are not allowed to be parents and not allowed to marry. And let homosexuals get married.

 

[cecilia]

more states are getting behind this 'legalize and TAX medical marijuana' thing. And I'm all for that because that is a great source of income. plus, taxpayers don't have to see a waste of money on some dumbass 'war on drugs' bullshit

drugs have no effects on my personal life, but it does affect my life as a citizen of this country when I see an utter waste of money and resources on something that is as stupid as a hatred of people just because they sometimes use drugs.

a friend of my mother's husband just passed away from cancer. During his last months he couldn't eat because the cancer treatments removed his appetite. could he have been helped by medical marijuana? I don't know.

I don;t know if it could have prolonged his life by letting him gain strength from being able to eat.

All I know is that his wife is devastated by his death. And if we care about other human beings shouldn't we try to help them?

what I hate about this so called republican party is that for them money is more important than people. And I really think that sucks. Especially since it seems that they are happy to waste both

 

[redrumloa]

what I hate about this so called republican party is that for them money is more important than people. And I really think that sucks. Especially since it seems that they are happy to waste both

I am indifferent on legalizing marijuana and am for medical marijuana for cancer patients and others. I just don't want freeloaders who refuse to work and collect welfare to buy their fix, while their children starve in squalor.

 

[faethor]

How about freeloader banks? It appears Waconia's disregard for banking laws gave cocaine cartels carte blanche financing of their operations. LINK

 

[cecilia]

How about freeloader banks?

and THOSE freeloaders have a bigger impact on MY economy.

and society CAN do something about welfare by having job programs. you want welfare? train for a job. don't train for a job, no welfare and your kids go into adoption.

end of major problem.

trust me, most women who have been left in situations where they Have to feed their kids will WANT a solution where they can actually MAKE money. And when we help them do that, everybody wins

solving the freeloader banks is lots harder to fix because they WANT to be thieves and have no incentive to be ethical

 

[Glaucus]

I am indifferent on legalizing marijuana and am for medical marijuana for cancer patients and others. I just don't want freeloaders who refuse to work and collect welfare to buy their fix, while their children starve in squalor.

Well, you should then add tests for alcoholism because you don't want people to drink their welfare checks away. You should also ban fat people because they should spend their welfare checks on healthy food so they don't burden the medical system. You should also ban smokers as that's just burning good money for no reason. I could add more to this list, buy you get the point.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

and society CAN do something about welfare by having job programs. you want welfare? train for a job. don't train for a job, no welfare and your kids go into adoption.

Jobs training is a joke, and cruel joke at that. It is almost useless since only the employers really know what skills they want and job training programs are always hopelessly out of sync. Mind you, this is also the case with colleges etc. They only teach what they are set up to teach, not what employers need. It takes a long time for colleges to change training to meet the needs and longer for students to catch on to the changing job market.

The absolute best way to get the right skills into the job place is close all vocational schools and go back to apprenticing. Employers train workers with the skill they need and since they invest in the workers they are more likely to want to keep them plus the workers are more loyal.

Jobs training programs set most people up for disappointment. There is a built in structural unemployment in the capitalist system. The economic planners strive to maintain a certain level of unemployment to keep wage pressures down. Unemployment of under 4% is usually considered inflationary and is to be avoided.

Currently unemployment is seen as quite good for business as it depresses wage expectation with some people taking 40% cuts just to keep their jobs. The flip side is that buying power goes down but that's a problem for the future and everyone figures they can export to someone with money.

There are some people who are destined to get no job no matter how much you train them. It's just the way it is.

 

[cecilia]

and society CAN do something about welfare by having job programs. you want welfare? train for a job. don't train for a job, no welfare and your kids go into adoption.

............

The absolute best way to get the right skills into the job place is close all vocational schools and go back to apprenticing. Employers train workers with the skill they need and since they invest in the workers they are more likely to want to keep them plus the workers are more loyal.

that's fine by me. I have always thought apprenticing is a great way to get people trained properly in a career. It worked for centuries for a reason.

(I'm a self-starter type person so I learned what I needed on my own time and expense. of course I also made sure I never had children because that would have messed with my finances horribly. But i am a very unusual case.)